Into the depths of AT&T’s let-us-buy-T-Mobile astroturf campaign

Surprise! AT&T has been rounding up support from groups it helps to fund, up …

AT&T is legendary for laundering its public policy preferences through minority and social service groups that it supports financially in order to produce an apparent groundswell of support. We've written about it enoughtimes not to be surprised by the practice anymore, but the Center for Public Integrity has just concluded an in-depth investigation of the practice that's well worth a look. In order to support its proposed T-Mobile buyout, AT&T has dug deep into its roster of supporters, going so far as to get local groups like the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission to write letters of support to the federal government.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them… though no one denied being asked to write the letters. A few of the quotes were telling. The Special Dreams Farm in St. Clair Township, Michigan received only about $2,000 from AT&T over the last several years, but it went ahead and wrote a letter to the FCC asking the T-Mobile purchase to be approved. “Obviously we would like to support companies big or small if they're supporting us,” said the group's president, Larry Collette, to CPI. "Everything is a two-way street.”

Other groups, also refusing to say that they had been outright bought off, did admit that “we are suffering right now and we need their support.”

AT&T's top lobbyist also heads AT&T corporate foundation, which disperses grants to thousands of small groups across the country. Such relationships can be useful when it comes time to show Washington what a wholesome company you run, but using grant money to help build support is hardly a tactic limited to AT&T. When a nonprofit called ReelGrrls criticized its corporate donor Comcast via Twitter, a Comcast exec wrote to the group and said that he "cannot in good conscience continue to provide [ReelGrrls] with funding—especially when there are so many other deserving nonprofits in town," given that "[ReelGrrls] is shaming us on Twitter."

The corporate message certainly need not be this explicit to be effective, of course; a gentle ask along with the one-sided presentation of some issue can be enough to get the job done. And a nonprofit focused on the homeless likely won't arouse the ire of its members by sending such a letter, so who cares? But backlash does happen on occasion. Three months ago, AT&T got hit hard after it convinced the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to support the T-Mobile purchase. GLAAD members were outraged and mounted such an effective campaign that the group's director and several members of the board—including an AT&T executive—resigned.

God vs. AT&T

Going to local homeless shelters with an "ask" might be a new low, however. The letter from the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission that resulted was a true embarrassment to everyone involved, with the Mission's director telling the FCC (PDF) about how Christians "never stop working on behalf of the underserved and forgotten. It might seem like an out of place endorsement but I am writing today in order to convey our support for the AT&T/T-Mobile merger."

AT&T isn't the “underserved and forgotten,” of course; instead, the letter suggests that “churches across the state and nation can use this mobile technology to spread the word of God more efficiently and effectively” and “the elderly could use wireless broadband for remote medical treatments.” (As Karl Bode of DSL Reports put it, "Who knew God wanted higher prices, reduced competition, and a further entrenched AT&T and Verizon market duopoly?")

People who have not received money from AT&T seem to think the Almighty opposes the buyout, judging from comments in the FCC docket.

"so i urge u guys come support of God house what will jesus do have great benfits of low cost carrier than high cost carrier come to support Us to deny this merger it will not be good our commuity," said one letter to the FCC.

Another writer, with a slightly better grasp of grammar, complained about AT&T. "Even if I get unhappy with ATT I have no other providers to choose from this to me is very un-american and makes me feel like im living in a socialist county where we are forced to use what the goverment provides to us… I pray to god and ask you to please reconsider this deal I am not making this up when I say ATT is already to big for its britches…"

Another warned, "Fascism is illegal; monopoly is over...the top...there is a spiritual price...done deal...thank goodness goddess includes god!"

More succinct was this entry, which runs in its entirety: "monopolies are bad. seriously, for the love of god, stop screwing the american people. god will judge."

But even if he won't, the federal government looks set against the deal, at least in its current form, with the Department of Justice filing a recent lawsuit to stop it.

AT&T knows that the FCC can determine that the merger is not in the public interest and block it. For what it's worth, many corporate image consultants that run astroturf campaigns moonlight as political consultants. These are the same people who produce ads accusing political opponents of being soft on child molesters.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them…

Okay, c'mon. What rotten journalism, and I hate to say I'm not surprised to see it on Ars.

They don't need to be pressured to write letters. Just the fact that AT&T has given them money in the past is enough motivation for a tight-budget non-profit. No threats required, the money is enough.

That's not supremely ethical either, but to harangue the non-profits for their reaction to your (or the CPI writers') suggestion treads on shakey ethical ground itself. There's a difference between reporting the reaction and cynically berating them for the reaction.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them…

Okay, c'mon. What rotten journalism, and I hate to say I'm not surprised to see it on Ars.

They don't need to be pressured to write letters. Just the fact that AT&T has given them money in the past is enough motivation for a tight-budget non-profit. No threats required, the money is enough.

That's not supremely ethical either, but to harangue the non-profits for their reaction to your (or the CPI writers') suggestion treads on shakey ethical ground itself. There's a difference between reporting the reaction and cynically berating them for the reaction.

-Pie

I'm sure the head of every small non-profit wakes up in the morning, reads about a merger between two telecommunications companies and thinks "I really should write to the FCC supporting this!"

But there is evidence to support it, while not stating outright some commented on how much they need the money. If you ask someone "did you steal from this person?" and they answer "I really needed the money" then they're not technically saying they did. However it takes one hell of an optimist to believe they're just making an unrelated comment about their financial position.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them…

Okay, c'mon. What rotten journalism, and I hate to say I'm not surprised to see it on Ars.

They don't need to be pressured to write letters. Just the fact that AT&T has given them money in the past is enough motivation for a tight-budget non-profit. No threats required, the money is enough.

That's not supremely ethical either, but to harangue the non-profits for their reaction to your (or the CPI writers') suggestion treads on shakey ethical ground itself. There's a difference between reporting the reaction and cynically berating them for the reaction.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them…

Okay, c'mon. What rotten journalism, and I hate to say I'm not surprised to see it on Ars.

They don't need to be pressured to write letters. Just the fact that AT&T has given them money in the past is enough motivation for a tight-budget non-profit. No threats required, the money is enough.

That's not supremely ethical either, but to harangue the non-profits for their reaction to your (or the CPI writers') suggestion treads on shakey ethical ground itself. There's a difference between reporting the reaction and cynically berating them for the reaction.

-Pie

The point is, it -is- pressure. They didn't just decide to send letters, AT&T called them up and asked. When a major donor "asks", it is --at least-- implied pressure, even if not an explicit threat. Their reaction is a denial of any pressure, which is obviously a falsehood.

Then, to top it off, they mask it as if helping AT&T's bottom line will benefit the poor in any way. It's sad and shameful, and should be "cynically berated" in my opinion.

This is just disgusting. The government should look at this and reject it, using this as evidence that AT&T is they are resorting to this rather than putting up a LOGICAL argument (because there is none that isn't easily countered)

I am actually surprised at the government resistance on this merger, when monopolies and near-monopolies have been routinely allowed to carry on with a slap on the wrist at most. This is hopeful. Maybe some people in power are starting to see the light.

Knelix - all it means, instead of "good and enlightened" leaders, is that this specific monopoly is not the one holding this specific administration's reins. Pick your poison in American politics - which major industry do you want to control the gov for the next four years? I think we need another four of the current power players, maybe with different names at the "top". Then we'll go back to Big Content and Big Oil for four, then back here to Big Pharma and Big Tech, then...

Alternating leadership is the only way to minimize the forces working to destroy our country. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

1. If they are gonna bribe someone, at least they are bribing some deserving folks. Better than the money going to a politician, which is what normally happens (OK I'm sure they are "contributing" to politicians too, but...).2. ""Even if I get unhappy with ATT I have no other providers to choose from this to me is very un-american and makes me feel like im living in a socialist county where we are forced to use what the goverment provides to us"-Three words dude: REGULATED WHOLESALE PRICING. Of course that will never happen in America (regulation is communism, right? -funny, though, how a lack of regulation produces the same end result as a government monopoly, whereas sensible regulation prevents this by assuring a competitive retail market).

Oh, is that what those losers..err..I mean, folks are doing? I thought they were bitching and moaning about how unfair their lives were while drinking their $5 Starbucks lattes and posting twitpics from their iPads and iPhones.

All you have to do is look at how they've changed their texting plans in the last few months to know they're using monopolistic practices. I just activated my new iPhone and suddenly I find my 5 dollar 200 text plan is gone replaced with a 20 cent a text plan or an unlimited 20 dollar plan. They claim it's a benefit to consumers but they didn't put that on the box for some reason.

What OWS should be focusing more on is less the fact that Corporations ask for hand outs (duh, so does every other group in the US... everyone wants free money) and get angrier at the government for giving in to them! It's the People's tax money that was pillaged and given away, and the government had it 100%, entirely under their control, and the undisputed ability to say "No, we're not going to give you 700 billion dollars, what a joke!", and instead they said yes. A bum comes up to you, who you know will ask for food but spend it on beer and has done that many times before, and asks for $20 for food. You give him the $20. He goes and spends it on beer. Fool me once...

(...) how Christians "never stop working on behalf of the underserved and forgotten.

(...) the letter suggests that “churches across the state and nation can use this mobile technology to spread the word of God more efficiently and effectively” (...) "Who knew God wanted higher prices, reduced competition, and a further entrenched AT&T and Verizon market duopoly?")

People who have not received money from AT&T seem to think the Almighty opposes the buyout (...)

"so i urge u guys come support of God house what will jesus do (...)

(...)I pray to god and ask you to please reconsider this deal I am not making this up when I say ATT is already to big for its britches…"

(...)thank goodness goddess includes god!"

(...)for the love of god, stop screwing the american people. god will judge."

Am I the only one who's weirded out by all this talk of god in the context of telecomms/antitrust?

On Topic: There are no depths that are too low for Corporate America to sink. Well...perhaps outright murder.

Off Topic: So many different people claiming to speak for God. Makes you wish the poor guy would come down and speak for himself sometime. The ambiguity is maddening.

Further Off Topic:

Quote:

Oh, is that what those losers..err..I mean, folks are doing? I thought they were bitching and moaning about how unfair their lives were while drinking their $5 Starbucks lattes and posting twitpics from their iPads and iPhones.

Thanks Fox News! Always nice to get a visit from you! We are honored and humbled by your presence.

Am I the only one who's weirded out by all this talk of god in the context of telecomms/antitrust?

Nope, it's depressing.

OTOH, the fact that so many people rely on an imaginary sky-daddy to solve their problems, instead of looking for rational solutions, sure explain why things are getting worst for them.

It doesn't look like they're looking for a "sky-daddy" so much as they're looking to place God on "their side". Sort of a "he's with me" big brother. Now if "sky-daddy" wants to be on their side, that's a whole other matter.

Naturally, just about every nonprofit contacted for the CPI article was shocked, shocked! at any suggestion that AT&T was pressuring them…

Okay, c'mon. What rotten journalism, and I hate to say I'm not surprised to see it on Ars.

They don't need to be pressured to write letters. Just the fact that AT&T has given them money in the past is enough motivation for a tight-budget non-profit. No threats required, the money is enough.

That's not supremely ethical either, but to harangue the non-profits for their reaction to your (or the CPI writers') suggestion treads on shakey ethical ground itself. There's a difference between reporting the reaction and cynically berating them for the reaction.

-Pie

The author contacted them--it says so right in your quote. Did you? Do you understand the allusion to "Casablanca", and why it's effective as used in the article?

I really don't see why AT&T bothers with this chickens**t bribery. All they have to do is wait for the Republicans to take the White House, and they (and every other evil monopolistic corporation) can do whatever they like. Problem solved!

I'm baffled as to what God has to do with any of this. Why did all the submissions reference God as the arbiter of what level of monopoly is appropriate in a capitalist system?

Were these quotes selected for their lack of intellectual rigour, or was that a random sampling of the level of letter-writing ability of concerned Americans?

+1

Letters to a congresscritter or Youtube comments? It's seriously hard to tell!I'm sure you could probably choose quotes to show a more 'enlightened / intelligent' cross-section of the American public (well, at least I _hope_ you could...), but the selected letters do seem to show certain similarities:1/ All of the writers believe in the Christian god, (and that He takes an interest in the profitability of US corporatations)2/ None of the writers seem to be very literate,Correlation?

On topic: evil greedy corporation is greedy. And evil. Good morning, capitalism :)

What OWS should be focusing more on is less the fact that Corporations ask for hand outs (duh, so does every other group in the US... everyone wants free money) and get angrier at the government for giving in to them! It's the People's tax money that was pillaged and given away, and the government had it 100%, entirely under their control, and the undisputed ability to say "No, we're not going to give you 700 billion dollars, what a joke!", and instead they said yes. A bum comes up to you, who you know will ask for food but spend it on beer and has done that many times before, and asks for $20 for food. You give him the $20. He goes and spends it on beer. Fool me once...

For full disclosure only 410 billion of that 700 billion was distributed. Now out of the 245 billion that went to banks 243 billion has been paid back and the government expects to make around 20 billion in interest. Ft’s funny how this never gets mentioned in articles concerning OWS. The administration has committed $50 billion of the TARP money to provide cash incentives to banks to modify mortgages of homeowners in danger of foreclosure, that money will probably never be repaid. In the end the corporations are expected to repay the money with interest, the monies dedicated to directly helping individuals will be a loss, like the "Green" car trade in program we get to pay for others mistakes.

What OWS should be focusing more on is less the fact that Corporations ask for hand outs (duh, so does every other group in the US... everyone wants free money) and get angrier at the government for giving in to them! It's the People's tax money that was pillaged and given away, and the government had it 100%, entirely under their control, and the undisputed ability to say "No, we're not going to give you 700 billion dollars, what a joke!", and instead they said yes. A bum comes up to you, who you know will ask for food but spend it on beer and has done that many times before, and asks for $20 for food. You give him the $20. He goes and spends it on beer. Fool me once...

For full disclosure only 410 billion of that 700 billion was distributed. Now out of the 245 billion that went to banks 243 billion has been paid back and the government expects to make around 20 billion in interest. Ft’s funny how this never gets mentioned in articles concerning OWS. The administration has committed $50 billion of the TARP money to provide cash incentives to banks to modify mortgages of homeowners in danger of foreclosure, that money will probably never be repaid. In the end the corporations are expected to repay the money with interest, the monies dedicated to directly helping individuals will be a loss, like the "Green" car trade in program we get to pay for others mistakes.

10 years of tax cuts, no jobs growth. Bailouts and stimulus spending are not normal and will never be fair, because life isn't fair and this recession sure as hell isn't fair.

The article should have stopped at making the point that AT&T are bribing non-profits who are doing a job that the gov't should be doing, which only increases corruption and therefore inefficiency. Not that any free market idiot would admit that people are greedy and do stupid counter-productive things with their money, like lobbying until the middle class disappears and then acting shocked that the economy doesn't work as well as it used to. How many breakdowns in the last 10 years? How far do we have to fall to admit that income redistribution is a fundamental feature of modern capitalist nations AND ITS GOOD FOR BUSINESS?!

What OWS should be focusing more on is less the fact that Corporations ask for hand outs (duh, so does every other group in the US... everyone wants free money) and get angrier at the government for giving in to them! It's the People's tax money that was pillaged and given away, and the government had it 100%, entirely under their control, and the undisputed ability to say "No, we're not going to give you 700 billion dollars, what a joke!", and instead they said yes. A bum comes up to you, who you know will ask for food but spend it on beer and has done that many times before, and asks for $20 for food. You give him the $20. He goes and spends it on beer. Fool me once...

For full disclosure only 410 billion of that 700 billion was distributed. Now out of the 245 billion that went to banks 243 billion has been paid back and the government expects to make around 20 billion in interest. Ft’s funny how this never gets mentioned in articles concerning OWS. The administration has committed $50 billion of the TARP money to provide cash incentives to banks to modify mortgages of homeowners in danger of foreclosure, that money will probably never be repaid. In the end the corporations are expected to repay the money with interest, the monies dedicated to directly helping individuals will be a loss, like the "Green" car trade in program we get to pay for others mistakes.

The bailout was never a problem. Ok, its a political problem since many sub humans cant count but thats another story. The real problem is political bribery and the all too famous revolving door...

Hell, Im not even an American and I see this clear as day. How can you guys not see it?

I really don't see why AT&T bothers with this chickens**t bribery. All they have to do is wait for the Republicans to take the White House, and they (and every other evil monopolistic corporation) can do whatever they like. Problem solved!

Yeeeessss...because we all know that it's all about the political parties. Only one side (the one we're not on at the moment) is corrupt. OUR side is never corrupt nor evil.

You should read the following. Then re-read it. Then continue to do so until you get a clue:

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -Robert A. Heinlein

Am I the only one who's weirded out by all this talk of god in the context of telecomms/antitrust?

Nope, it's depressing.

OTOH, the fact that so many people rely on an imaginary sky-daddy to solve their problems, instead of looking for rational solutions, sure explain why things are getting worst for them.

Yes because atheism has proven to be such a better system for solving problems. I understand that is why there is no poverty and crime, the atheists have cleaned all that up. Why are these letter writers referencing God? It is a way of identifying themselves and their situation to the target of the letters. Yes it is bad for ATT to strong arm them. Yes, you can question if they have sold out their causes for a few bucks. It is understandable, though, if you are in their position. I guess I don't have to tell you this, right? I am sure with your superior mental abilities you have all kinds of organizations helping the poor and making their lives better, right?

Am I the only one who's weirded out by all this talk of god in the context of telecomms/antitrust?

Nope, it's depressing.

OTOH, the fact that so many people rely on an imaginary sky-daddy to solve their problems, instead of looking for rational solutions, sure explain why things are getting worst for them.

Yes because atheism has proven to be such a better system for solving problems. I understand that is why there is no poverty and crime, the atheists have cleaned all that up. Why are these letter writers referencing God? It is a way of identifying themselves and their situation to the target of the letters. Yes it is bad for ATT to strong arm them. Yes, you can question if they have sold out their causes for a few bucks. It is understandable, though, if you are in their position. I guess I don't have to tell you this, right? I am sure with your superior mental abilities you have all kinds of organizations helping the poor and making their lives better, right?

I didn't mean to make an "us vs. them" argument with my initial comment. I was just remarking how weird it is *for me* that god gets mixed up in these mundane themes.

And very quickly: for me, atheism isn't a system - it's a world view. I can't picture a god in this world, just as you probably can't picture a world with no god. People in both sides can be good or evil, believing or not believing doesn't make you better or worse than anyone. I think your reply shows double standards - you're apparently OK with a world with poverty and crime, as long as it also includes a god. But you dismiss atheism because it can't deal with the exact same issues.

When a nonprofit called ReelGrrls criticized its corporate donor Comcast via Twitter, a Comcast exec wrote to the group and said that he "cannot in good conscience continue to provide [ReelGrrls] with funding—especially when there are so many other deserving nonprofits in town," given that "[ReelGrrls] is shaming us on Twitter."

This seems quite different than the AT&T case that is the main thrust of the article. I think that non-profits, if they choose to criticise their donors, they should expect that donor to stop donating. But to solicit letters of support is very different. I don't think the comparison between the actions AT&T is taking and this action that Comcast took was really comparable.

Oh, is that what those losers..err..I mean, folks are doing? I thought they were bitching and moaning about how unfair their lives were while drinking their $5 Starbucks lattes and posting twitpics from their iPads and iPhones.

Thanks Fox News! Always nice to get a visit from you! We are honored and humbled by your presence.

Hah, you don't need to watch/read/listen to Fox News to see those spoiled children reading their infantile speeches and demands from high-end gadgets like iPads. There was just a story about thefts occurring among the protestors that included one of them whining about her tricked out Macbook getting lifted, or the stories about how they are receiving gourmet food from "anonymous" donors. Or should we look to Atlanta where they refused to let civil rights leader (and far leftist) Rep. John Lewis speak to their little pow-wow because of some nonsense about refusing to recognize someone's opinion being worth more than others.

The best part is that there is ultimately corporate money behind these clowns, and they are too busy raging against mommy and daddy to realize it. Average people aren't sending surf & turf as food donations.

(And the other half write comments in articles about Detroit illiteracy, apparently.)

Somehow that's undermined by the financial packages to the US car makers,isn't it? But seriously - the whole txt-sp33k thing is starting to look like a pandemic that'll leave a small minority in an 'I am Legend'-esque world. Granted,in our case it won't be the KV,but the effect will be similar

Edit: And I'm starting to think Idiocracy wasn't just a satire,but a scary glimpse of the sadly not-so-distant future

Edit2:@OhmnFeel free to complain about us evil atheists,but don't forget a simple truth - At least we're not the reason for countless millions of deaths in the name of an imaginary being,nor we did our best to quell all innovation and dissenting ideas and thus literally holding back humanity a millenium.